Returns connection status and URLs. When all providers are connected, returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. When credentials are missing, returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so a description that merely said 'gets status' would be a 3. The description earns a 4 because it adds genuinely novel behavioral detail: the state-dependent response shape (authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected; connect_url in the failure case). This discloses the tool's external-side effects and state transitions beyond what annotations convey, which is exactly what behavioral transparency asks for.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second explains the happy path, and the third explains the fallback case. Every sentence earns its place and the response shapes are front-loaded. This is a model of restrained, efficient prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, readonly status tool without an output schema, the description covers the two key response scenarios sufficiently. It would have been slightly more complete with a full field listing, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations confirming its read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature, everything the agent realistically needs to invoke it correctly is present. The gap is minor (e.g., expected HTTP status codes or response types not described), which is why it's a 4, not a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the rubric sets the baseline at 4 for this case. There's nothing more the description could have added to clarify parameter intent since no parameters exist. The description appropriately avoids inventing unnecessary parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Returns' with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs'). It explains the behavioral branch points (all providers connected vs. missing credentials) with concrete response fields. While it's clearly a connection status check, it doesn't explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info', which limits a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is a status-checking tool distinct from 'authenticate' (which presumably initiates auth), but it never explicitly states 'when you need to check connection, use this' or names alternatives. The usage context is reasonably implied by describing return states, but an explicit note about when to prefer the sibling tools would have made this a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have unclear boundaries: authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all deal with authentication/connection state, while marketplace is a catch-all that includes searching, invoking, installing, and managing MCPs. Only tribunal_trt7_processo_consultar is clearly distinct, but the generic platform tools overlap enough to create selection risk.
Naming is inconsistent: one-word verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), snake_case verb_noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), and a Portuguese noun-infinitive combo (tribunal_trt7_processo_consultar) are mixed together. There is no clear, predictable naming convention across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number overall, but the set is lopsided: six tools are generic platform-management utilities and only one tool actually serves the named Tribunal TRT7 domain. The count feels acceptable for the platform shell but thin and somewhat off-purpose for a consultation server.
The single domain-specific tool likely covers the core 'consulta processual' lookup, but there are no other tribunal-specific tools for searching by different criteria, retrieving extended case details, or handling related follow-up actions. The rest of the tools are generic infrastructure, so the domain surface is minimal and leaves notable gaps for broader process-consultation workflows.